BattleTech - The Board Game of Armored Combat
Catalyst Game Labs => BattleTech Game Errata => Topic started by: Xotl on 03 July 2016, 09:29:46
-
This thread is for all issues and problems with Campaign Operations.
Product Link: http://bg.battletech.com/test/core-rulebooks/campaign-operations/
There is no compiled errata for this product at this time.
Please remember to follow the errata report template (http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,2412.msg171290.html#msg171290) when reporting issues. Thanks.
Developer-Level Errata:
In case of any contradiction, developer-level errata takes precedence over the current errata document.
None.
-
pg 43 & 192.
Overhead Compensation is still listed
per cray from this thread http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=25791.msg603995#msg603995
The overhead column will be deleted from the table.
-
page 146
Clan Coyote uses the wrong color in the map legend. Clan Coyote should be light blue.
-
pg 77
MANEUVERING ACE entry
Vehicle crews receive a +1 target modifier on any Piloting Skill Rolls required if the vehicle fails to fulfill the requirements for a turn mode (see p. 25, TO)
This looks like a bad copy/paste from aToW. Shouldn't that read as -1 target modifier? The way it is written it looks like the +1 is making the PSR harder rather than easier.
Vehicles crews receive a +1 roll modifier on any Piloting Checks required if the vehicle fails to fulfill the requirements for a turn mode (see p. 25, TO)
-
Pg 147, Clan Homeworlds map.
Problem: A blank circle is shown next to Delios and there is text for Gatekeeper, but no circle shown.
Solution: Move the circle to the location for Gatekeeper, color it 100% dark blue (Clan Star Adder) and delete the text for Delios.
-
Pgs 33 (table) and 37 (text) list different penalties for rape. Table says -25, text says -10.
Actually, that's true for nearly all the crimes mentioned. Perhaps I'm missing something. Is it meant to be -25 for the first incident, and -10 for later ones?
-
Minor formatting issues.
First PDF Release, page 24, right column, third full paragraph (fourth paragraph on page)
units with the “Easy to Maintain” quirk (see p. 193, SO) multiply
the cost of their spare parts (per ton) by 0.8. units with the “Difficult
to Maintain quirk (see p. 198, SO) multiply the cost of their
Units needs to be captialized.
Difficult to Maintain quirk is missing a closing quotation mark. Suggested change follows:
Units with the “Easy to Maintain” quirk (see p. 193, SO) multiply
the cost of their spare parts (per ton) by 0.8. Units with the “Difficult
to Maintain” quirk (see p. 198, SO) multiply the cost of their
page 28, Second paragraph: Phoenix Hawk needs to be displayed in non-italic text to match the other combat units listed in the example.
-
P. 17, "Large Spacecraft Table" (and again in table on p. 188)
Typo in the "Space Station" section: "round up to the nearest"
"Very Rare" section: Lists "Monolith DropShips".
Error: The classic Monolith is a JumpShip class, not a DropShip class.
Possible Error (if the JumpShip class was meant): "Very rare" describes less than 100 in existence. Without going into too much detail, it would seem 100 is too low and ComStar's "less than 50" from the TROs is grossly misleading.
Correction: Change "DropShip" to "JumpShip" - or maybe introduce a Monolith-class DropShip. ;)
Perhaps also change "less than 100" into "low hundreds".
-
Picture Tag on Page 32:
Outweighed by 275 tons, light Marik Militia ’Mechs have no choice but to be corralled be a Davion Guards assault lance.
Should read:
Outweighed by 275 tons, light Marik Militia ’Mechs have no choice but to be corralled by a Davion Guards assault lance.
-
Page 42, Master Contract Terms Table:
The content in the "Payment Multiplier" column in the "Unit Reputation Trait" section is missing.
-
Page 154, last sentence at the end of the "Key Locations" paragraph:
GMs and players are encouraged to ass their own Key locations and benefits to their campaigns.
Should probably change that to "assess their own Key locations...". ::)
-
Page 154, last sentence at the end of the "Key Locations" paragraph:
Should probably change that to "assess their own Key locations...". ::)
Instead of "assess" it should be "add"
-
Page 42, Master Contract Terms Table:
The content in the "Payment Multiplier" column in the "Unit Reputation Trait" section is missing.
I am 99% certain that the entire Payment Multiplier section should have been removed as it would have been a holdover from the FM:Mercs rules. See my errata post for Overhead Compensation above. The payment multiplier was (again 99% certainty) replaced by the reputation factor.
So the errata should be the section "Payment Multiplier" needs to be removed.
If one of the devs can chime in on if this post or the quoted post is the correct errata please do so.
-
Per email discussion with Ray, an errata in credits (Special Thanks):
Mike would like to thank Roberta Elder. The system generation chapter wouldn't have happened without your primary stats calculations.
********************************
Addressing errata questions:
Pgs 33 (table) and 37 (text) list different penalties for rape. Table says -25, text says -10.
Actually, that's true for nearly all the crimes mentioned. Perhaps I'm missing something. Is it meant to be -25 for the first incident, and -10 for later ones?
Oops. The p. 37 text is correct, and the table on p. 33 should be corrected to reflect the text.
pg 43 & 192.
Overhead Compensation is still listed
per cray from this thread http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=25791.msg603995#msg603995
Yep, needs to go. Actually, it was deleted in the drafts literally years ago, around the time that post was made. I wonder how it got back in.
I am 99% certain that the entire Payment Multiplier section should have been removed as it would have been a holdover from the FM:Mercs rules. See my errata post for Overhead Compensation above. The payment multiplier was (again 99% certainty) replaced by the reputation factor.
So the errata should be the section "Payment Multiplier" needs to be removed.
Yes, it should be deleted. It was also eliminated from the drafts a while ago.
-
p. 99, "All The Pretty Colors" sidebar, right column:
These Roman numerals, those used in these rules, range from V (sub-dwarf) to I (super giant stars). In between those values, V refers to the common main sequent dwarfs (the longest phase of a star’s lifecycle)...
The underlined "V" should be "VI," the Roman numeral for 6. The following partially quoted sentence used "V" (5) correctly, though the underlined "sequent" should be "sequence."
-
Pg 191 Payment Multiplier column should be removed from here as well. My above thread and the original post covering this only mentioned pg 42
-
First PDF release, page 62, Battle Lance Variations. This section says the Battle Lance has four variants, but five variants are listed on page 63.
Suggested fix: Add "Berserker/Close Combat Lance" to Variations.
-
Page 103, object type table:
In the outer system column, there is no listed 8 result.
-
Question on rolls, which may be sourced from other manuals as I haven't (yet) found an answer in CO;
In reference to availability checks for 'Mechs/Veh/Inf/Aero/Etc:
pg13 "While limited to only one Availability Roll per unit..."
Does the "one check per unit" apply to Spacecraft:
pg19 "An Elite crew would be a challenge to get (Availability 12) but after failing four rolls for an Elite Leopard, Veteran (Availability 11), Regular (9), and even Green (8 ), respectively, the model appears to be entirely out of reach."
** Question -
What determines the number of rolls one may make vs any single unit? (Didn't Merc:3055 associate a flat resource cost per attempt(?)) (My expectation is that it is implied combinations of <vessel> & <crew_skill> are unique).
If at least 4 rolls per any desired unit could be made, if starting off with an extremely long-shot (12's), one would be able to hammer down the list until "finding" one that would be available - at no cost for the search. While this could be RP'd as someone expending time at a computer-terminal or haggling at an auctioneer, it doesn't seem to be limiting. Is this intentional?
In extension, what would be the frequency (in time) that one may search for large crafts during game-play, if limited...
"Very Rare" section: Lists "Monolith DropShips".
Error: The classic Monolith is a JumpShip class, not a DropShip class.
Possible Error (if the JumpShip class was meant)
hehe Beat me to it ;)
"Failed Administration Table"
2-6 No significant event. Combatants make negative jokes about REMF competency, hurting administrators’ feelings.
Thoughts: LOL
-
Question on rolls, which may be sourced from other manuals as I haven't (yet) found an answer in CO;
In reference to availability checks for 'Mechs/Veh/Inf/Aero/Etc:
pg13 "While limited to only one Availability Roll per unit..."
Does the "one check per unit" apply to Spacecraft:
pg19 "An Elite crew would be a challenge to get (Availability 12) but after failing four rolls for an Elite Leopard, Veteran (Availability 11), Regular (9), and even Green (8 ), respectively, the model appears to be entirely out of reach."
** Question -
What determines the number of rolls one may make vs any single unit? (Didn't Merc:3055 associate a flat resource cost per attempt(?)) (My expectation is that it is implied combinations of <vessel> & <crew_skill> are unique).
You can make one roll per combination of vessel and crew skill. I should've repeated that on p. 17, like it was said on p. 13:
"While limited to only one Availability Roll per unit, players may still roll for close variants, or roll for the same unit with a crew of different experience."
So, I suppose a p. 17 errata would be:
"The formulas contain several factors. Each one starts with
a base equation, usually based on the cost or mass of the
spacecraft. After this equation, which is used for every faction
and era, other factors apply. Rarity factors will require careful
review of Technical Readout sourcebooks; some suggestions
are provided in the Large Spacecraft Procurement Table.
Another modifier is the skill of the vessel’s crew. While
limited to only one Availability Roll per large craft, players
may still roll for close variants, or roll for the same unit with
a crew of different experience."
If at least 4 rolls per any desired unit could be made, if starting off with an extremely long-shot (12's), one would be able to hammer down the list until "finding" one that would be available - at no cost for the search. While this could be RP'd as someone expending time at a computer-terminal or haggling at an auctioneer, it doesn't seem to be limiting. Is this intentional?
The rules were built with the observation that players tended to more often put together any force that suited them with their favorite 'Mechs and spaceships. Putting an overly strict set of rules on acquisition in place probably wouldn't be used in practice, so this roll-for-availability seemed like a happy balance. For players who didn't even want that much hindrance, they could just skip to the Alternate Flexible Force Creation Rules (p. 30).
-
PDF pg 75 Foot Cavalry
So I brought this up before but posting here so it is in its proper place.
Squads led by a Foot Cavalry character gain an additional 15 meters (1 MP) of movement per turn...
Squads led by a Foot Cavalry character gain an additional 15 meters (1 MP) of movement per turn...
Looks like a bad copy/paste. For Total Warfare play it should read "an additional 30 meters (1 MP) of movement per turn..."
edit* Stupid quotes...
-
p. 28, Table, Merchant JumpShip row: fuel should be 439,650.
The totals row should show fuel total of 2,062,350.
In the text, right column, "while the hydrogen will be 1,807,875 CB unless Jason finds a modest water source" should be "while the hydrogen will be 1,803,150 CB unless Jason finds a modest water source"
-
Print 1st Printing, p. 162, Example,
The example given for determining Technology Rating is the old, *old* system that had a force with over 50% upgraded 'Mechs, including Clan with only a "D" Tech Rating.
The last four paragraphs of the example should probably be replaced with something along the lines of:
Inner Sphere Standard Rules units = (6/12) x 100 = 50 percent
Clan Standard Rules units = (2/12) x 100 = 16.67 x 2.0 = 33.34 percent
Added together, the total percentage of units with Standard Rules Inner Sphere/ Clan technology is this 83.34 percent (rounding down to 83 percent).
The unit therefore has an 83-point Equipment Rating. Comparing the 83 points against the Equipment Rating Table results in a B Equipment Rating.
-
This error also appears in various products that include warchest points such as Era Report 3145 and it originated in Total Chaos see reply #34 - http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=20265.msg1266756#msg1266756 )
Print 1st Printing, p. 162, Example,
The example given for determining Technology Rating is the old, *old* system that had a force with over 50% upgraded 'Mechs, including Clan with only a "D" Tech Rating.
The last four paragraphs of the example should probably be replaced with something along the lines of:
Inner Sphere Standard Rules units = (6/12) x 100 = 50 percent
Clan Standard Rules units = (2/12) x 100 = 16.67 x 2.0 = 33.34 percent
Added together, the total percentage of units with Standard Rules Inner Sphere/ Clan technology is this 83.34 percent (rounding down to 83 percent).
The unit therefore has an 83-point Equipment Rating. Comparing the 83 points against the Equipment Rating Table results in a B Equipment Rating.
-
Page 142, second paragraph
"In this section, players will learn how to how to run a campaign..."
"How to" is repeated
-
pg 20 Technical Personnel, bottom of 1st column states that a tech support team is needed for every 5 Battle Armor Troopers.
Same page, top of 2nd column states that you divide the total number of BA in the force by 4 to determine the number of tech teams needed. Later, in the same paragraph, a divisor of 5 is used in the example calculation.
-
LOCATION: p. 104, example of object type determination, left column, first paragraph, second sentence
THE ERROR: The example refers to a since-deleted modifier. "He notes that orbit slots 5 to 8 are beyond the life zone, so their rolls will have a +2 modifier"
THE CORRECTION: "He notes that orbit slots 1 to 4 are in the inner system, and so roll on the that column in the Object Types Table, while orbit slots 5 to 8 are beyond the life zone so their rolls will use the outer system column."
-
p21
Right column first paragraph after bullet
note their salary is increased per the Salary
Table (p. 23).
Incorrect page reference. The correct page is 25. Page 23 contains examples and example worksheet.
-
P. 78 Under Natural Grace third bullet point.
"This will allow most bipedial/humanoid 'Mechs to rotate their torsos through 300 degrees (covering all facing except directly to the rear)" should probably be "[...]240 degrees[...]" instead, unless 300 degrees is some wired fluff dictated value, instead of something used to explain how the rules work.
------------
Edit by Alfaryn: After thinking about pheonixstorm's post below for I while, I can see his point. I look at both feet and torso of a 'Mech standing in the center of a hex as always pointing to the centers of appropriate adjacent hexes, he looks at the torso as pointing at the center of a hex or anywhere up to 30 degrees to the left or right of that direction.
Either way of looking at those things is valid I guess. I still consider my way of looking at it as easier to explain (an consistent with what we see on the diagrams explaining torso twisting in Intro rulebook and TW. As such I consider it better suited for the text on p. 78 of CO (and p. 224 AtoW, as pheonixstorm pointed out), but I don't see the reason to argue over that point.
I'll leave to the moderators and errata maintainers to either accept or refuse this errata. Moderators feel free to remove this edit if you accept the errata, or this entire post if you refuse it.
------------
Edit 2 by Alfaryn:
I've just realised one scenario where my way of calculating angles and those proposed by pheonixstorm would produce different gameplay results. It is if someone tried to adapt those rules on extended torso twisting/no torso twisting to Miniatures Rules (specifically I'm thinking about non-Quick Strike rules on pp. 386 - 400 here) in Strategic Operations. The only problem with it is that I can't find any rules about torso twisting there and Firing Arcs rules on p. 394 don't strike me as confirming either my or pheonixstorm's position.
-
If each hexside represents a 60 degree angle then 300 is correct as humanoid/bipedal mechs can twist two hexsides in either direction rather than a single twist.
The wording is also the same as written in A Time of War p224
-
pg 12
Arnold must be blind in addition to mathematically challenged :P
example says...
Force’s background imposes on his
budget. Playing a 3025-era (x1.0) Force aligned to a major
Inner Sphere power (x1.0), his basic budget is unchanged
from 50 million CB.
The example is incorrect. Playing Federated Suns in 3025 would give his force a 1.2 multiplier for Major Power. 1.0 is listed as Minor Power such as the poor Capellans after 3030
-
on pg 149 it states "If Force Composition for a scenario uses unequal numbers of units, the side with the smaller number of units must reduce their Force for that battle only"
I assume that the bold, underlined text should have read "Larger number" as it doesn't make sense for the smaller Force to further reduce their numbers to fight a combat scenario. Also there are no guidelines on what force should be reduced to but it seems implied that the forces involved should reduce to even number of units or at least balanced forces using one of the predetermined ways of balance. This would be impossible if the smaller force further reduced their units.
Also in the map-based campaign section it states that formations may only be given one order/command in a strategic turn and that combat happens when enemy forces encounter each other in the same hex on the map. However, because units can only receive one order/command it would be impossible for enemy forces to ever encounter each other outside of at least one unit acting under the "move" order/command. The way the rest of the rules are stated there are other options clearly stated.
This would imply that either combat doesn't happen during strategic turns in which at least one combat command isn't given (so two move commands into the same hex by enemies does not result in combat but when one force gets a combat command in the next strategic turn it does), or that moving is incorporated into the "scout" and "attack" action. This section needs clarification.
-
pdf/print p25 & 26
The ammo entry for the Packrat is incorrect. It has 2 tons of SRM 6 ammo not three.
p25 Change the following
The Packrats have 3 tons of SRM ammunition each, which becomes 0.75 tons and 20,250 CB
to
The Packrats have 2 tons of SRM ammunition each, which becomes 0.50 tons and 13,500 CB
The ammo entry for the Bulldog is also incorrect. It only carries a half ton of MG ammo.
p25 Change the following
The Bulldogs have 2 tons of SRM and 1 ton of MG ammunition each, which Arnold quarters as he enters into the TO&E sheet (for 13,750 CB per tank).
to
The Bulldogs have 2 tons of SRM and .5 ton of MG ammunition each, which Arnold quarters as he enters into the TO&E sheet (for 13,625 CB per tank).
The worksheet on p26 will need to be changed to reflect the corrected numbers.
-
pdf/print
p103
Step 3: Filling Orbital slots second bullet point. This entry references a step 3a but there is no step 3a. The following page has an example followed by Step 4.
Note that asteroid belts may come with dwarf terrestrials (see Step 3a).
The reference to step 3a should be removed or an actual step 3a needs to be added.
-
PDF/Print
p24
units with the “Easy to Maintain” quirk...
Units is the start of a new paragraph/sentence and should be capitalized.
-
Print/PDF
Reputation Score Calculation Table p33 & 190
Lacks any DropShips -5
Transportation section p35
Subtract 5 if the transport capacity
is insufficient, or 10 if the Force lacks any DropShips.
When using the table and looking at the rules this becomes unclear how to proceed. Perhaps rewording this section to match the table would be helpful
Subtract 5 if the transport capacity is insufficient, and if a Force lacks any Dropships subtract an additional -5 (for a total of -10).
-
PDF/Print
p36 - Transportation Example
With 10 of 40 light vehicle bays and 3 of 4 infantry bays left,
the Seeker has excess capacity, but not enough to carry the
Force twice over. This nets 5 points for the Force’s reputation.
It can carry all the personnel, too (without touching the bay
personnel capacity of the Invader), so that’s 3 more points[/].
Reputation Score Calculation Table p33 & 190
No modifier for being able to carry all support personnel. It only has
Insufficient Transportation Capacity for Support Personnel -3
Either a add Sufficient Transportation Capacity for Support Personnel +3 or change the example to remove the +3 modifier.
-
p83, Determining Experience Rating
Replace this section with the definition of Average Experience Rating on p33.
"Average Experience Rating: Players find a force’s average Experience Rating from the Experience Ratings of the force’s combatant units (i.e., anything except JumpShips, administrators, and technical personnel; count each infantry or battle armor squad as a single combatant).
To determine a combatant unit’s (WarShip, tank, BattleMech, etc.) Experience Rating from its skills, sum the values of all the combatants’ Piloting and Gunnery Skills (or Gunnery and Anti-’Mech Skills for infantry squads, or Driving and Gunnery for vehicles), then divide this sum by the total number of combatants multiplied by 2. (The multiplication by two accounts for each combatant unit having two skills.) Round the result half-down (.5 and below rounds to the next lowest integer, .6 and above rounds to the next highest integer) and cross reference the rounded value against the Skill Average column in the Force Experience Rating Table on p. 83."
-
pg61 Anti-Mech Lance bonus ability
Distracting Swarm—units in an Anti-’Mech
Lance swarming an enemy unit (see p. 220, TW) cause a –1 To-
Hit Modifier to any weapon attacks made by the enemy unit.
I believe this ToHit modifier is labeled incorrectly. As written Distracting Swam appears to make the attacker targeting easier. Pretty sure it should read +1
-
LOCATION: p. 114, Special Features and Occupancy, left column
THE ERROR: The following text has lost some punctuation and clarity, per discussion here:
http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=59271.msg1362128#msg1362128
"Results on the table are generated by rolling 2D6. If the result is
8 or higher, then roll 2D6 on the Special Features Table, modified
as follows by the Habitability Modifier from the Primary Stats
Table: –4 for ice giants, gas giants, and giant terrestrials with gas
giant-type atmospheres; –3 for giant terrestrials with terrestrial but
uninhabitable atmospheres; and –2 for dwarf terrestrials."
THE CORRECTION:
Results on the table are generated by rolling 2D6. If the result is 8 or higher, then roll 2D6 on the Special Features Table. This second roll is modified by adding the Habitability Modifier from the Primary Stats Table, then adding the following modifiers as appropriate : –4 for ice giants, gas giants, and giant terrestrials with gas giant-type atmospheres; –3 for giant terrestrials with terrestrial but uninhabitable atmospheres; or –2 for dwarf terrestrials.
-
LOCATION: p. 51, Procuring Equipment and Personnel in a Campaign, 2nd paragraph
THE ERROR: The following equation, originally derived from FM:Mercs Revised, doesn't work well with the current availability modifiers:
http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=57951.0
The second step is determining how long the procured
equipment takes to arrive. Once ordered, equipment and
personnel take [7 – (1D6 + Availability)] ÷ 4 months to arrive,
as determined by the Availability values in Stage 3 of Force
Creation. No matter the dice roll result, it takes at least a month
to acquire the equipment and personnel.
THE CORRECTION: Replace the minus sign with a plus:
The second step is determining how long the procured
equipment takes to arrive. Once ordered, equipment and
personnel take (7 + 1D6 + Availability) ÷ 4 months to arrive,
as determined by the Availability values in Stage 3 of Force
Creation. No matter the dice roll result, it takes at least a month
to acquire the equipment and personnel.
-
LOCATION: p. 123, Planetary Population Table
THE ERROR: The planet condition modifier, "Gravity below 0.8G or above 1.2G" appears to overlap the "Uninhabitable Modifier," which includes "Gravity over 1.5Gs."
THE CORRECTION:
1) Delete "gravity is over 1.5Gs" from Uninhabitable row.
2) Change row "Gravity below 0.8G or above 1.2G" to "Gravity below 0.8G or 1.2-1.5Gs"
3) Add new row, "Gravity above 1.5Gs," with a modifier of x0.5.
-
PDF/Print
p36 - Transportation Example
Reputation Score Calculation Table p33 & 190
No modifier for being able to carry all support personnel. It only has
Insufficient Transportation Capacity for Support Personnel -3
Either a add Sufficient Transportation Capacity for Support Personnel +3 or change the example to remove the +3 modifier.
Per discussion with cray, add the +3 to the reputation score table
-
ATOW Sniper SPA will be clarified as in the below thread to specify which range modifiers are changed. This clarification should be extended to CO as well. The specific concern is that the old wording allows the SPA to benefit LOS Range shots, which it specifically is not intended to affect at all.
https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=5954.msg1416052#msg1416052
-
I had thought Paul would have posted this after our quick discussion but...
Looks like Range Master will need the same treatment as the Sniper SPA, it should not allow for modifiers at LOS range.
p78, change
The Range Master Ability grants the warrior mastery over any
range band except Short (Medium, Long and so forth).
To
The Range Master Ability grants the warrior mastery over any
range band except Short (Medium, Long and Extreme).
-
There's some internal discussion about this one.
-
Just for Cam Ops or for all three mentioned (ASC, aToW, and CO)?
-
One Ruling to find them;
One Ruling to bring them all
and in the darkness bind them
-
We're adding that errata, but nixing Extreme as a possibility as well.
-
CO, p.162:
REPLACE:
"Inner Sphere Standard Rules units = (6 / 12) x 100 x 1.5 =
75 percent
Clan Standard Rules units = (2 / 12) x 100 = 16.67 x 2.2 =
36.67 percent
Added together, the total percentage of units with
Standard Rules Inner Sphere/Clan technology is thus 111.67
percent (rounding down to 111 percent). This exceeds 30
percent by 81.67 percent, or eight full 10 percent increments.
The unit therefore has a 40-point Technology Rating.
Comparing the 40 points against the Equipment Rating
Table results in a D Equipment Rating."
WITH:
"Inner Sphere Standard Rules units = (6 / 12) x 100 = 50 percent
Clan Standard Rules units = (2 / 12) x 100 = 16.67 x 2 = 33.33 percent
Added together, the total percentage of units with
Standard Rules Inner Sphere/Clan technology is thus 83.33 percent. As this is less than 85 percent, the unit therefore has a B Technology Rating Modifier."
-
With the Dodge SPA, is it safe to assume that a failed PSR on the part of the dodger does _not_ make physical attacks against him easier?
-
Page 24, Campaign Operations
The Error: the multiplier for Spare Part cost for infantry is given as "1 percent of a squad infantry compartment’s mass (even foot infantry: they have equipment that sees wear and tear)."
The Correction: Per this rules question (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=54683.0) (thank you Phoenix Storm and Cray for noodling this out), that sentence should read: "Conventional infantry consume 0.2 percent of the necessary transport compartment’s mass (even foot infantry: they have equipment that sees wear and tear)." This should also remove any confusion about applying the mass required for a squad to a platoon.
As an aside, I decided to post this here after working through some infantry support cost calculations and discovering I had used a different multiplier in some spreadsheets from last year. It took a bit to unearth why, but the rules linked question above was the reason.
-
Page 24 & 25, Campaign Operations
The Error: Page 24 contradicts itself about infantry ammo.
Page 24 says: "The peacetime consumption of ammunition by ammunition-using units in the Force is one-quarter of the vehicle or infantry force's ammunition capacity. This represents ammunition spent to maintain the skills of the Force. Divide a unit's ammunition tonnage and cost of ammunition by 4 to get the monthly peacetime expenditure."
Page 24 alternately says: "Conventional infantry should refer to the rules for ammo costs and weights and are assumed to carry five reloads for their weapons as a standard combat load."
Page 25 example says: "Consulting the power pack entries, Arnold figures the Standard Military Pack would apply, and each infantryman should carry 5 of those heavy packs. Doubling that consumption per month to represent training, Arnold notes that consumption is 400 CB and 40kg per trooper."
The Correction:
Page 24: The peacetime consumption of ammunition by ammunition-using units in the Force is one-quarter of the vehicle or infantry force's ammunition capacity. (Infantry are addressed separately, below.) This represents ammunition spent to maintain the skills of the Force. Divide a unit's ammunition tonnage and cost of ammunition by 4 to get the monthly peacetime expenditure.
[third "Ammunition" paragraph on p. 24 is unchanged:]
Ammunition weights for any unit other than conventional infantry may be found in the appropriate Technical Readout. Conventional infantry should refer to rules for ammunition costs and weights (see pp. 260-285, A Time of War) and are assumed to carry five reloads for their weapons as a standard combat load. They use double that amount for average monthly peacetime training. If the infantry are armed with non-plasma energy weapons and are often stationed with fission- or fusion-powered vehicles (i.e., they spend a maintenance cycle with such a vehicle after a maintenance cycle involving combat), then the ammunition cost and weight is divided by 10, because their power packs may be recharged for free and only worn or damaged packs need replacing.
-
Pages 33-34 of Campaign Operations
The Error: Tactics is part of Commands Reputation, but Tactics has mandatory subskills (p. 141 ATOW) not mentioned in this section.
The Correction:
p.34 currently reads,
"If the player has not created a leader using
the rules presented in A Time of War, the
player can designate one of the combatants
on his TO&E as the Force’s commander. The
player then rolls 1D6 each to determine the
commander’s Leadership, Tactics, Strategy and
Negotiations Skills (or Investigation instead
of Negotiation, for pirate Forces)."
p. 34 changed:
If the player has not created a leader using
the rules presented in A Time of War, the
player can designate one of the combatants
on his TO&E as the Force’s commander. The
player then rolls 1D6 each to determine the
commander’s Leadership, Tactics, Strategy and
Negotiations Skills. (Use the highest Tactics subskill for simplicity. Further, use Investigation instead
of Negotiation for pirate Forces).
-
Error: page 39, stage 2 of contract "negotiation" for pirate forces. Incorrectly states that force Reputation applies to pirate "contract" (victim) investigations.
Was: "This step is not so much determining an employer as selecting a victim. Pirates roll in the same manner as a mercenary Force with the “No Hall” modifier. The result is the victim targeted by each raid opportunity."
Should be: This step is not so much determining an employer as selecting a victim. Pirates roll in the same manner as a mercenary Force with the “No Hall” modifier and ignore Reputation. The result is the victim targeted by each raid opportunity.
Error: page 40, pirates are stuck adding or subtracting their Negotiation rather than Investigation.
Was: Pirates: The process for arranging a pirate raid is basically the
same as setting up a mercenary contract. However, instead of
negotiating terms, the rolls made to build the contract represent
the pirates’ process of locating a target (competing against
security and intelligence agencies rather than negotiating),
and the value recovered from it.
Should Be: Pirates: The process for arranging a pirate raid is basically the
same as setting up a mercenary contract. However, instead of
negotiating terms, the rolls made to build the contract represent
the pirates’ process of locating a target (competing against
security and intelligence agencies rather than negotiating),
and the value recovered from it and thus use Investigation rather than Negotiation.
-
Page 93 Draconis Combine –
Assault Vehicle Reg’t (CU) has incorrect armour values.
Table states 31 armour with a composition of 2 Hv Tank and 1 Aslt Tank CT.
Armour values are actually:
Hv Tank CT: 9
Hv Tank CT: 9
Aslt Tank CT: 11
Total: 29
Page 95 Free Worlds League
Light Vehicle Regiment (CU), incorrect values. The table states:
Mov: 9; TMM:3; Armour: 21; S/M/L damage: 6/6/0; Spec: IT9, RCN
CU should be composed of three CT of Light Vehicle, the values for each CTs are:
Mov: 8; TMM: 3; Amour: 6; S/M/L damage: 3/3/0; Spec: IT3, RCN
Correct values for CU should be:
Mov: 8; TMM: 3; Armour: 18; S/M/L: 9/9/0; Spec: IT9, RCN
Page 96 Lyran Commonwealth
Medium Vehicle Regiment (CU), incorrect Medium Range Damage value. Table states 9, s/b 10
CU is composed of 1 HV CT and 2 x MV CT
Medium damage values should be:
MV CT: Md Dmg 3
MV CT: Md Dmg 3
HV CT: Md Dmg 4
Total: Md Dmg = 10
Page 97 Periphery
Armour value for Assault Mech CU is incorrect because the armour value for the Assault Mech CT is incorrect.
The Aslt Mech Unit armour value is 17. An Aslt Mech CT consists of 3 x Aslt Mech Units so armour s/b 17.
The table for the Aslt Mech Regiment (CU) is 40. This CU is composed of 2 x Hvy Mech CT and 1x Aslt Mech CT. The armour values should be:
Hvy Mech CT: 12
Hvy Mech CT: 12
Aslt Mech CT: 17
Total 41
-
PDF, first printing
p 62. Anvil Lance
Problem: per this note, (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/errata/errata-discussion-thread/msg1674621/#msg1674621) the minimum armor value should be changed
Exclusive to House Marik Forces. All units must be medium or larger, possess at least 40 points of armor...
Solution: change 40 to 105
-
All errata to this point has been corrected and folded into the upcoming reprint of Campaign Operations. Feel free to continue making reports, but anything further will have to wait for the revised edition of Campaign Ops.
Note that, over and above the usual errata, 1) the book received extremely extensive rewrites in places, which were also performed directly by the authors rather than annotated by me, and 2) the book was then reorganized with extensive material from Strategic Operations. As such, there won't be a formal errata document for this one marking the changes from the 1st print to the revised edition: it's just too difficult to track it all.